Who are you arguing with here. It comes across as a strawman.
First cognitive scientists are going to say the science of learning is the science of how we learn and would be applicable to how to teach. The science of teaching would be an overlapping domain that added items like behavior management.
Second it’s always the case that science is not values based. It doesn’t attempt to tell you what outcomes you should desire. Who is claiming that science can tell you which outcome is better?
Third it is always the case that what organizations consider- statistical results are not the same as what individuals consider- one sample result.
Fourth, what professional do you think is so much more scientific than teaching? A similar argument to your about the science of flight would go something like - each landing is different, weather airport, plane, crews state so we cannot apply the science of flight here. Further, what outcomes we care about - safety, comfort, fuel cost, time cannot be determined scientifically so we can’t use science here.
Again my point is just that most of what you say here is obvious and would apply in any profession so it is worth pointing to who thinks differently to avoid it seem you are arguing with an imaginary ignoramus.
On the values debate – I’m claiming that we’ve packaged up a body of research and techniques as the Science of Learning, but this smuggles in values under the guise of objectivity. Banal example – it’s almost exclusively focused on improving attainment, as if there are no other valid educational outcomes.
Learning is studied across a very broad range of disciplines; the Science of Learning, as often codified, takes a narrow segment of this, generally from cognitive science. Drawing from cognitive science is obviously to be welcomed – but not to the detriment of other disciplines (education or psychology more broadly, for example).
Who am I arguing with? Ofsted, England’s school inspectorate, the Department for Education and the EEF, by far the largest producer of research in the country. The post gives specific examples of places I think they misrepresent or use only a sliver of the available research.
This isn’t abstract for me. Inspection pressures shape how I teach. When I’m involved in teacher training, I’m obliged to introduce cognitive load theory, but no other theory of learning. Theories of motivation, for example, barely appear in these documents, despite extensive in-school research to back them up. Of course, I can bring in, for example, research into curiosity, but when it appears to clash with what’s classed as the Science of Learning (as it does in places – something for a future post), it isn’t the Science of Learning that has to give way.
Sorry I don’t see it. To take my example it’s like saying the claim a pilot must have some knowledge of the science of flight implies that is all there is to running a passenger airline.
No where in all your discussion on outcomes do you give an example of someone actually saying the science of learning provides answers to what outcomes are wanted.
Ofsted has no shortage of non attainment desired outcomes. (Here in I’m using attainment in the sense I think you are - subject specific knowledge and capability attainment.
You can’t claim because they mention cognitive load theory they want you to ignore all outcomes where it is not applicable.
Thanks Stan. Briefly – you’re right Ofsted has plenty of non-attainment aims. My point is that the evidence base assembled under the term ‘Science of Learning’ is almost entirely about impact on subject knowledge and attainment. There’s nothing stopping us building and communicating an evidence base about the effect of teaching techniques on other outcomes but we’re not doing that, which ultimately shapes what schools do.
I’ll leave it there for this post but happy to pick up the discussion again on the next one.
Thank you for writing this blog. I’m not sure if the science of learning is about teaching after carrying out a replication study... There are many more aspects involved than we currently understand I think. I’ve written about it here: https://psycnet.apa.org/fulltext/2026-36551-001.html
Thanks for the comment, Nienke, and for the link to the paper, which I enjoyed reading. It also helps to illustrate part of my concern. A single study can have a wide impact, and feed into practitioner guidance. How robust was the original study? Sometimes you don’t know until you try to replicate the findings.
We’re in the process of codifying valuable research under the term ‘Science of Learning’. In doing so, I worry that the nuance, like the generalisability of the original findings, is lost. The Science of Learning – as presented by some policy documents – can appear almost infinitely generalisable.
You mentioned the science of learning and teaching. To check I’ve read you correctly, were you saying that teaching and learning can’t really be separated in that way?
Hi Chris, in all the studies I’ve done thus far i have attempted to connect teaching and learning in the study design. I approach teaching and learning from a complex dynamics systems metatheoretical perspective. I have to add that my research background is in applied linguistics / developmental psychology (with a foundation in the humanities). I think complex dynamic systems theory fits really well as a meta theoretical lens, surprisingly the systems lens is still far more common in second language development research literature than in educational research literature. To answer your question: I think indeed it is impossible to bypass reciprocity and / or co-construction of the teaching-learning process when it comes to studying teaching and learning.
Again, I think your own research example shows why we’re still some distance from a settled Science of Learning that has clear implications for what teachers must do in the classroom. I’m certainly not an expert on complex dynamic systems theory, but I’m sympathetic to any approach that acknowledges the complexity involved in learning.
Part of my argument was that research into learning is wider than the studies often cited as part of the Science of Learning. Your point about the metatheoretical lens helps to explain the limitations. And I certainly wouldn’t dispute that, when it comes to teaching and learning, there’s a reciprocity involved.
I love the nudge you present- looking forward to reading the links and the argument again to see where the dust settles. Until then, still a “hear, hear.”
Thanks Emily, I appreciate that. My guess is that it’ll be a while until the dust settles but I’ve enjoyed reading the different takes – and given that it affects what goes on in the classroom, there’s quite a bit riding on it.
Who are you arguing with here. It comes across as a strawman.
First cognitive scientists are going to say the science of learning is the science of how we learn and would be applicable to how to teach. The science of teaching would be an overlapping domain that added items like behavior management.
Second it’s always the case that science is not values based. It doesn’t attempt to tell you what outcomes you should desire. Who is claiming that science can tell you which outcome is better?
Third it is always the case that what organizations consider- statistical results are not the same as what individuals consider- one sample result.
Fourth, what professional do you think is so much more scientific than teaching? A similar argument to your about the science of flight would go something like - each landing is different, weather airport, plane, crews state so we cannot apply the science of flight here. Further, what outcomes we care about - safety, comfort, fuel cost, time cannot be determined scientifically so we can’t use science here.
Again my point is just that most of what you say here is obvious and would apply in any profession so it is worth pointing to who thinks differently to avoid it seem you are arguing with an imaginary ignoramus.
Thanks for reading, Stan.
On the values debate – I’m claiming that we’ve packaged up a body of research and techniques as the Science of Learning, but this smuggles in values under the guise of objectivity. Banal example – it’s almost exclusively focused on improving attainment, as if there are no other valid educational outcomes.
Learning is studied across a very broad range of disciplines; the Science of Learning, as often codified, takes a narrow segment of this, generally from cognitive science. Drawing from cognitive science is obviously to be welcomed – but not to the detriment of other disciplines (education or psychology more broadly, for example).
Who am I arguing with? Ofsted, England’s school inspectorate, the Department for Education and the EEF, by far the largest producer of research in the country. The post gives specific examples of places I think they misrepresent or use only a sliver of the available research.
This isn’t abstract for me. Inspection pressures shape how I teach. When I’m involved in teacher training, I’m obliged to introduce cognitive load theory, but no other theory of learning. Theories of motivation, for example, barely appear in these documents, despite extensive in-school research to back them up. Of course, I can bring in, for example, research into curiosity, but when it appears to clash with what’s classed as the Science of Learning (as it does in places – something for a future post), it isn’t the Science of Learning that has to give way.
The “science of learning” is an umbrella term which appears to have taken on a life of its own!
Exactly!
Sorry I don’t see it. To take my example it’s like saying the claim a pilot must have some knowledge of the science of flight implies that is all there is to running a passenger airline.
No where in all your discussion on outcomes do you give an example of someone actually saying the science of learning provides answers to what outcomes are wanted.
Ofsted has no shortage of non attainment desired outcomes. (Here in I’m using attainment in the sense I think you are - subject specific knowledge and capability attainment.
You can’t claim because they mention cognitive load theory they want you to ignore all outcomes where it is not applicable.
Thanks Stan. Briefly – you’re right Ofsted has plenty of non-attainment aims. My point is that the evidence base assembled under the term ‘Science of Learning’ is almost entirely about impact on subject knowledge and attainment. There’s nothing stopping us building and communicating an evidence base about the effect of teaching techniques on other outcomes but we’re not doing that, which ultimately shapes what schools do.
I’ll leave it there for this post but happy to pick up the discussion again on the next one.
Hope you cover this at some point.
As it is your piece doesn’t point to specific cases of people using the term science of learning ambiguously.
But it does do that itself.
It comes across as if someone complained the science of reading doesn’t cover mathematics.
It is not at all obvious that anyone is saying the science of learning is anything more than the scientific basis for how we learn.
Who if anyone is confusing this with what schools are for is never explained.
Thank you for writing this blog. I’m not sure if the science of learning is about teaching after carrying out a replication study... There are many more aspects involved than we currently understand I think. I’ve written about it here: https://psycnet.apa.org/fulltext/2026-36551-001.html
Thanks for the comment, Nienke, and for the link to the paper, which I enjoyed reading. It also helps to illustrate part of my concern. A single study can have a wide impact, and feed into practitioner guidance. How robust was the original study? Sometimes you don’t know until you try to replicate the findings.
We’re in the process of codifying valuable research under the term ‘Science of Learning’. In doing so, I worry that the nuance, like the generalisability of the original findings, is lost. The Science of Learning – as presented by some policy documents – can appear almost infinitely generalisable.
You mentioned the science of learning and teaching. To check I’ve read you correctly, were you saying that teaching and learning can’t really be separated in that way?
Hi Chris, in all the studies I’ve done thus far i have attempted to connect teaching and learning in the study design. I approach teaching and learning from a complex dynamics systems metatheoretical perspective. I have to add that my research background is in applied linguistics / developmental psychology (with a foundation in the humanities). I think complex dynamic systems theory fits really well as a meta theoretical lens, surprisingly the systems lens is still far more common in second language development research literature than in educational research literature. To answer your question: I think indeed it is impossible to bypass reciprocity and / or co-construction of the teaching-learning process when it comes to studying teaching and learning.
Again, I think your own research example shows why we’re still some distance from a settled Science of Learning that has clear implications for what teachers must do in the classroom. I’m certainly not an expert on complex dynamic systems theory, but I’m sympathetic to any approach that acknowledges the complexity involved in learning.
Part of my argument was that research into learning is wider than the studies often cited as part of the Science of Learning. Your point about the metatheoretical lens helps to explain the limitations. And I certainly wouldn’t dispute that, when it comes to teaching and learning, there’s a reciprocity involved.
I love the nudge you present- looking forward to reading the links and the argument again to see where the dust settles. Until then, still a “hear, hear.”
Thanks Emily, I appreciate that. My guess is that it’ll be a while until the dust settles but I’ve enjoyed reading the different takes – and given that it affects what goes on in the classroom, there’s quite a bit riding on it.